tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 4, 2014 1:00am-3:01am EDT
states, the concern is that i do not ever like to see people get sick and people suffer and die, but as a medical professional who has witnessed and experienced a whole 38 years since 1976, i never say i'm not concerned because that is interpreted as taking something lightly. i take nothing lightly, but i'm convinced by what we have all said today that the system that is in place with our health care infrastructure would make it extraordinarily unlikely that we would have an outbreak, and the reason we know that is if we look at the situation and nigeria, as the secretary mentioned, is a classic example of that -- the reason we're having this devastating, painful, very difficult situation in the west african countries is because they don't have the system to be able to contain it. if they had the system, we would not be seeing all the suffering and dying in west africa. >> if that's case, if it's one
case in the united states now, as we know it is, why are we having news conferences like this, and why are we also afraid? if there's no chance of an outbreak, what is it about this disease that frightens you and us? >> ok, so we are having the press conference because we need to get information out because there's a lot of fear, and the reason there's a lot of fear is that there are many things when you have outbreaks -- it's the unknown, the cataclysmic nature of it, mainly, it is acute. it kills in a high percentage, and it kills quickly. that in and of itself almost intuitively makes people frightened. the other thing that makes people frightened -- can this happen to me without my even knowing it, without my having any behavioral change at all? that's the kind of thing that we have to keep over and over again emphasizing. we respect your concern. we understand your concern, but the evidence base tells us that
that is not going to happen, and we have to say that a lot. we have to say it today, and i'll have to say it tonight on tv, and we will try as best as we can to continue to get the message out. >> one follow-up -- who bears ultimate responsibility for what did happen, the breakdown that happened in texas? is it the hospital that did not send a clear enough guidelines in the beginning? and you are taking steps to make sure this does not happen again, sending clear guidelines, being more communicative? what specifically is being done? >> i think, as with most things, it is about making sure -- i think in the response the question he just said, we cannot over communicate about this issue, and we cannot over communicate in two ways. one, because of the question that was posed with regard to how people feel, and the second is this is an execution game. in terms of both what is
happening on the ground, and that is why it is so important to have the united states military because there is no one that can help with execution -- it is the same in the united states, so the steps that we have to take our about making sure execution, execution, execution, and that gets to your question, which is that's why we need to communicate and communicate again and communicate with clarity. that's why there are 100 different documents that have been put up on the cdc website. we put up the document, we get the call. if there is a question and for some reason people do not feel it is clear or have an additional question, we headed up. we answer their question, but we are trying to disseminate that information more broadly. because this is about communication and execution, we want to continue to do that and do it is much and as quickly as we can. -- do it as much and as quickly as we can. thank you.
>> c-span's campaign 2014 continues a center rand paul continues for a couple of republican candidates in north carolina. after that, conversation with john paul stevens on his career and life in the nation's highest court. the district court of appeals hears an argument challenging the law that bans federal contractors from contributing to political campaigns. on the next washington journal, the u.s. response to ebola domestically and abroad. i look at governor races across the country focusing on in cupboards with tough reelection bids. plungis talks about how the
government and trucking industry are discussing the issue of public safety. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> on saturday night at 9:00 eastern, the founder and former chair of microsoft bill gates on the ebola virus outbreak in west africa. sunday evening, the director of the smithsonian's national museum of african art. that is saturday night at 10:00. the history of the republican party and live sunday at noon on book tv's in-depth, the supreme court biographer. saturday at 5 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3, former fbi agents on catching the unabomber suspect. sunday afternoon, the 100th anniversary of the panama canal. find our schedule at
www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us or you can send us a tweet on twitter. join the conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> the 2015 student cam competition is underway. the nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five minute documentary on the topic -- the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of views and be submitted by january 20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. >> kentucky senator rand paul was in north carolina earlier this week campaigning for senate
candidate tom tillis who is running against kay hagan and walter jones. our c-span cameras followed senator paul to the stops in raleigh and greenville. this is one hour. >> good morning. how are you? >> good morning. >> i like your shirt. >> i like your shirt. thank you for coming out. you live in raleigh? >> yes. thank you. >> thank you for coming out. >> oh, yeah. >> keep it up. you live here?
>> yes, i do. >> were you in the navy? >> yes. nephew who is in the navy. >> he has been california for the past few years. hawaii.tually going to >> i have been there a number of times. >> he has done of act -- he has done his active duty flying. he is been there for about 13 years. >> keep up the good work. >> thank you for your support. >> and nice to meet you. you are my favorite u.s. senator. i am thrilled.
>> thank you. >> perfect. thank you for all you do. i am from apex. >> i spent seven years in durham. >> no way. i didn't know that. >> i was there for four years in the 1980's. >> i never knew that. you were like right down the street. >> we used to be near apex to swim. >> really? >> i have never been there. >> it was always a blast. we used to ride bikes. cliff we would dive off into the water. >> i cannot believe he used to live here. thank you so much for coming to north carolina. >> i hope thom pulled it out.
if he wins north carolina, we can get the senate back. >> we have to otherwise it is the end of our country. thank you for standing brave. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming out. speaker tillis has been a strong proponent -- the first toll road. questions, do you support public-private partnerships? >> i don't think we have had a specific opinion on tollways. to do something about infrastructure. one idea that i have now is lowering the tax on american overseas. andng that tax money
>> i have been here for seven years in durham. we used to give out awards. .e used to do press conferences i was here when the republicans for the first time. >> great time to be in raleigh. thank you so much. >> do you mind if i get a picture with you? >> i'm running for north carolina senate. right here. can i get one with a handshake? awesome. >> you got it? awesome. >> got bless you. -- god bless you. >> thank you for coming out.
>> can we bring you guys up? [whistle] hey, everybody. good morning. i am tom tillis. i'm running for the u.s. senate. [applause] want to make sure everybody knows my wife susan is here. years in aife for 27 great asset to this campaign. i appreciate all the patients she has. it is great to have a loving wife by your side. i want to thank all of the volunteers that are here working hard, knocking on doors, making phone calls. you are the difference maker of this campaign and you are why we are here today. thank you all very much.
i will be brief and turn it over to senator paul. the reason i am running for the senate is because kay hagan says she will get something done. she said anybody that votes for the president 92% of the time doesn't live in carolina. she said that about president bush. 96% of the time she voted for president obama. she said if we liked our health care we could keep it, we cannot. 54,000 retirees are receiving letters letting them know that the federal government decided their health care is not good enough. they will get a premium notice a month from now. increase premiums and decreased coverage. these are continuing string of broken promises. kay hagan says the debt back in 2008 was a disgrace. now the debt is $17 trillion approaching $18 trillion. the middle east situation is unacceptable. we have to destroy isis and
figure out how to do it. we need to have a president that has a plan. who sits onnator committees that should be about the strategies and she has no plan. kay hagan is failed the people of north carolina and that is why we need to send her home and fire harry reid as the majority leader. [applause] i want to turn it over. i am thrilled to have senator paul in town. it is an honor to get the support i have had from the broad spectrum of the republican caucus. senator paul is fighting tirelessly for our freedom. thinker. independent i love independent thinkers. people that go to washington and expect nothing more than accountability and the freedom that we need to give back to the american people. i am proud to have them here in north carolina. i am proud to have his support.
let's welcome senator rand paul. [applause] >> thank everybody for coming out. i'm happy to be in north carolina today. as some of you know, i spent seven years here. i did my medical training in durham at duke university. bothers hysician, it me that we have senators like kay hagan who think that you're not smart enough to choose your own doctor. the arrogance of passing legislation that says she knows better who you can choose. i have probably close to a dozen friends in my small town in bowling green, kentucky, that have cancer. they got to go to m.d. anderson, the best cancer treatment center in america. with obama care, you don't get to choose your doctor.
this goes against the fabric of the country to have legislation that prevents you from having the choice of your own doctor. i have a 22-year-old son. he has biths control, pregnancy coverage, pediatric conch. it's a crime that the country's giving him in vitro fertilizeation. he does not need it. he needs a bare bones catastrophic insurance plan. he needs to be able to choose something that's cheap, that would cover him in the time of an accident. this debate over health care is not a want-to debate. it's about freedom versus coercion. three months after obama care was passed kay hagan had another chance to try to make it less bad. hehood a specific vote on
whether or not to grandfather in people who had their insurance already, people who had chosen their doctors. kay hagan looked the other way and voted twice, first for obama care and again against allowing people the choice to choose their own doctor. i think that nothing good will happen in this country until she's gone. people say is there a difference between republicans and democrats? yeah. republicans believe in balancing the budget. we had a vote on a balanced budget. where was kay hagan? voting against it. none of this thezz will ever get a vote as long as she's in charge. the ground zero for taking the u.s. senate back is north carolina. you've got republican governs, republican house and senate. you need a republican u.s. senator i'm happy to be here
today to have cocktails are you guys. [applause] >> shawn -- is your appearance here that an indication that anybody who might be leaning towards >> i'll say a little bit but ideas. e lib tear lower taxes, balanced budgets. personal liberties. i think tom represents those ideas and i'd like to let him respond. >> the reason we want any senator member of -- senate member of caucus here and the belief that kay hagan has failed the people of north carolina. they all share that belief. they're inconsistent with where the nation wants to go and where the state wants to go. i welcome any member of the
senate caucus to come here. i'm thrilled to have the support that i do. that's the way we got things done in raleigh in the last three years. vetod a broad base, we had overrides against the governor. i like what hear read does, take 350 bills out of the house and do nothing about it. harry reid and kay hagan have shut down the congress. there are other things we should be able to do. -- ahas rubber stamped harry >> you've put senator haggan for the way she ran against senator dole and her voting record. if you priorityize across the aisle, could you give us an example of things you could work with president obama on?
>> there are a variety of policies that have been passed out of the house that i know even democrats or the senate would vote for if they could come to a vote. there are things about clawing back regulations, slowing down the health policy of obama care. there are things that would get the job and the economy back on track. >> what about those w4506 come from the white house? >> i think what you have to do is find a congress with economic policy, regulatory policies, things that the majority of the senate is prepared to vote on but barack obama has told harry reid not to take it up. they're delaying a lot of the policy votes until after the election. there's 473 cancellation letters that went out last year. ow they decided to delay it.
the man that can be the only individual that can save america from self-destruction. this country is 17.7 trillion dollars in debt. 5.6 year 2000, it was trillion. today it's 17.7 trillion. neither bush or obama have followed the institution. the man this i'm going to introduce right now believes that the constitution -- believes in the institution and when he raises his right-hand to accept the presidency of the united states -- [applause] >> -- he will follow the substitution. i give you rand furcal the great state of kentucky. [applause]
>> i'm happy to be here today. it's a privilege to be here to endorse my friend walter jones for re-election. thank you for coming. walter has been a good friend of our family for a long time, and i think one thing you should know in north carolina in his district is that he is well respected. he is well respected as an independent voice in washington and a voice of someone who truly has a conscious. someone who truly thinks about the soldiers who live here in north carolina and the soldiers who fight for us, the young men and women who volunteer to fight for our country. and so walter and to myself, neither one of us see this as a chess game. this isn't checkers, chess. commoditiesnanimate you move around on a board.
you'll find no greater supporter than walter jones. [applause] >> you may have heard about a little girl. she was -- she thought shead do something good. she wrote a letter to god. she said, dear god, if you send me $100 i'll do something good with it. the post master didn't know what to do with it so he sent it to the president. the president got it and said to his secretary, send her $5. she'll think that's a lot of money. she gets the $5 and she's a little underwhelmed. her parents said send a thank you. she said "thanks for sending the money. the next time, don't send it to washington. they stole it." [applause] >> we can probably just stop there. that moral is fairly universal.
you think, well, why can't government do anything right, is government inherently stupid? it's a debateble question. here's the thing. there are a couple of arguments for why we should keep government to a minimum, why government should do little things. one, because they don't do much of anything very well. in fact, you might say they have trouble even protecting the white house. all right? you think that would be pretty simple. but the thing is, government doesn't do many things well. so i tell people there are two arguments for keeping government small, for minimizing your government. i call them the liberty argument and the sort of efficiency argument. the liberty argument is what thomas paine said. he said that government's a necessary evil and you think, oh, that's a terrible thing to say about government. i think it is because the -- i'm a part of it. why is it a necessary sneevel
you have to give up part of your freedom to have freedom. you have to give up to form a government. this isn't an argument for having no government. it's just an argument for minute migse how much freedom you have to give up to have a government. one simple true statement someone said nobody spends someone else's money as wisely as they spend their own. think about it. do you think people in government care whether it's 10 bucks or 10,000 or 10 million or 10 billion. now we're talking about trillions. do you think any of them lay awake at night thinking about, hmm, wonder if i made a mistake with that trillion dollars today. if i ask you to give a thousand dollars for an investment, due
think you'd think about it before you gave it to me? you think you'd worry if you're getting the money back. if you bor row money for your house or car, do you worry about the money? yeah. you have to meet payroll, a profit. all those signal -- every tchay there's a signal back to you, government gets none of those signals. government's wildly inefficient, so we should let them do very little. when we look at how we're going to get to prosperity in this country again, how we're going to get jobs again, it's a real simple message. keep more money in your community. keep more money in north carolina. keep more money in greenville and less money to washington. you say, aren't all republicans for that? sad -- the sad truth -- the sad struth no. >> amen. >> what passes for bold in washington is, hey, guys, i'm for revenue-neutral taxes.
i say if that's what we're for, i'll just go home. i'll go at home and still yell at my tv when i'm angry. i'm not participating. i'm not giving up a lot of things i can do with my family to go to washington. >> amen. >> do you remember ronald reagan getting up and saying good morning, america. i'm for revenue -- neutral revenue tax reform. we had 20 million jobs created because we were boldly for what we are for. we have a big debate going on. how's the party going to get big enough to win again? i've been fairly hard and i've said we need to adapt or die. we have to become a bigger party. if we don't become a bigger party by diluting our message. what we are for, we should be ho for. we are the party of the constitution. we are the party of the bill of
rights. we're the party that will protect your rights if you're a minority. you can be a minority because of the color of your skin or the sthade of your ideology. you can be a minority because you're a fundamentalist christian or you like to teach your kids at home. or your jewish or black or asian american. there's a lot of reasons why you're a minority. we need to stand up for every minority. the bill of rights isn't for the prom queen. the bill of rights isn't for the high school quarterback. they're going to be treated fairly. they always are. the bill of rights is truly for those who might be unorthodox, who might have an unusual idea, who might not look like everybody else. so we have big debates in washington. i think one of the biggest deebts we have in the last four or five years is whether or not we can detain an american citizen without a trial. i can't imagine anyone who could be for that, but many members of our party were. one senator on the floor said -- i said to him, you can take an
american citizen and send them to guantanamo bay without a trial? >> he said, yeah, he's dangerous. i -- anybody meb remember richard jewel everybody thought he was guilty. he was convicted on tv. within hours, it turned out it wasn't him. he wasn't guilty. but can you imagine if he'd been a black man in the south in 1920? what would have happened to him? the bill of rights is to protect minorities, whether it's the color of your skin for shade of your ideology. we need to be the party who stands up for the rights of everyone. we need to proclaim our message with the passion of patrick henry but also proclaim our message with optimism. paint like a man coming over the hill singing, one painter said. i think if we paint our message like a man come over the hill
singing, when we proclaim our message with the passion of patrick henry, we'll be the dominant party again. i thank you for helping my friend. [applause] >> i'd rather be out in the crowd shake hands. you can ask him questions then. thank you. [applause] >> you're from kentucky, right? >> right. >> 245es where i'm originally from. >> i don't know what senator rand paul's going to do in the future, but i know that politics as usual is not going to fix america's problems. electing a president that is picked by their party bosses is not going to fix america's problems. [applause]
i want to read just one sentence from the presidential oath "and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states of america." mr. bush bush did not keep his words when he swore to the american people. mr. obama has not kept his word when he swore to the american people, but the man i'm going to introduce now, if given that chance, will keep his toward the american people, and that is the senator from kentucky, rand paul. let's give him a warm welcome. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you.
i'm glad to be in north carolina to endorse my friend walter jones for re-election. you guys going to get him back? he'll win again? [cheers and applause] . >> good. now, i think i'll come back to north carolina. i almost moved closer to your district. i was going to -- we interviewed in wilson, almost a little bit outside the district and i tell people that's my favorite trivia question. you know how you say wilson if you're from north carolina? you add a n there. wiltson, i'm from wiltson. or if you're from way out in eastern north carolina or -- how do you say when you want to have mebody come over to your h-o-u-se? have you been to my ome before? what happened to the h? i spent seven years at duke and
i got to kentucky and i was like, you know, i'm going to put my doip on the wall. i went to the duke medical school. they'll think that was a good school and that will help me get patients. i got there in 19939 right after lighter in made the shot against against the university of kentucky. the hotshot that's probably been replayed than any other shot in history. 1.4 seconds to go, if you really know your basketball, he gets the pass and dribbles once. who has the where with all to dribble once when you have 1.4ing seconds to go. do you know he had a perfect game? 10-10 from the field. 109-10 from the line. about the time kentucky goes he'd, makes the shot, lucky shot actually off the glass, and goes in -- kentucky's ahead by one and our phone starts ringing.
in durham we had a bunch of kids-h folks over from medical school. this is a day when you had a phone that had a -- like a -- it's a cord. i don't know if you've ever seen these. it's attached to a cord. people actually answered their phone. you didn't screen, you didn't know who was calling. you just answered it. nobody answers the phone anymore. my wife hopped up to answer the phone, kentucky had made the shot. she gets there and about that time, he made the shot and whoever was on the other end hangs up. and her brothers are big u.k. afternoons, so we suspected this. t took about 10 years to admit that they were calling to give us a hard time about duke losing. then duke was winning. i was in a barbecue line and there was a guy in front of me
who's here tonight. we won't say who he is. he had two big plates. i said you're note going to live very well eating like that. to id, my grand dad lived be 105. i said he didn't live to 1035 by eating like thaft. he said no, my grand dad lived to 105 by minding his own business. i think there's a moral there. maybe we could use that as a public cry for government, minding your own business. [applause] >> i think a corollary to that might be leave me the heck alone. if you want to be a part of the leave me alone coalition, if we want our party to be bigger, maybe if we ask people to join the leave me the heck alone peart, we'd have a bigger coalition. i've been going to college
campuses. conservative college campuses, even berkeley. i've been to liberty university, i've been to berkeley. there's a big difference there. but i gave them the same meageed it's received in both places well. the message is, what you do or say on your cell phone is none of the government's business. [applause] people say, you don't want to get terrorists? no. i do want to get terrorists. but i don't want to get 300 million americans to find terrorists, right? i think sometimes we make the haystack so big we can't find the needle. for example, the two boys in boston, we were warned by the russians that one of them was potentially a terrorist. he traveled back to chechnya and nobody even knew he traveled. you know why?
the computer program couldn't figure out alternative spellings for his name. we've been 10 years after 9/11 and we haven't figured that out? that's happened multiple times. one of these kids could probably write the codes in 10 minutes to figure out multiple spellings for a name and yet we did nothing. the t.s.a. looks at everyone. we've got to strip from head to tow toe and be patted down. why don't we try to have a way where people travel frequently in our country can do it in a respectable manner where we don't have to be harrah'sed at every moment. there was a professor add harvard who said, the next time you go to the airport, you have to hold your hands up for seven vulnerable moments. is this the position of a free
man? we have to be careful that we don't give up what we're defending against in the process of capturing terrorists. [applause] jai know a lot of you are worried that your government might shut down. i have good news for you. your government's open. ok? the bad news is, your government's open, ok? your government's open and borrowing a million dollars a minute. so in the next 13 hours of my speech we're going to borrow -- no. can you imagine in the next 20 minutes we'll borrow $20 million. it's completely crazy. we had this big battle about a year ago. you remember when the government shut down? well, sort of. the president was afraid you might not notice. why? because 2/3 of your government's on autopilot. 2/3 is medicare, medicaid and
social security. it never closes down. it is immortal. it is in perpetuity and not paid for twu but 2/3 of your government never shut down. so really we were talking about a third of your government. why were we talking about that? because congress doesn't do their job? storically we would pass appropriations billings. we don't do that anymore. the deadline looms and we look like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off. it's 2,000 pages, nobody reads it. nobody can physically read it. we often get it at 8:00 in the morning. we pass it at noon. nobody reads it. to make matters worse, when we kept government open two weeks ago, they stuck a little war in the spending bill.
we didn't even have a debate. i told them inconvenient time to talk about it. we shouldn't willie nily send our courageous men and women to war without having a debate over it. it's a crime we didn't. when government shut down a year ago, we had a third of your government is split. half of it's defense and half of it's sort of the other stuff. welfare, other things. we said we should pay our military, we did. we opened up the military. when the president was squawking about how evil and awful republicans were, a sixth of the government was closed. so what did he do? he was afraid you might not notice. you remember what he did. he wrapped the world war ii monument to make sure you knew -- were punished for being a i would have volunteered to mow
the grass. i like doing that. they wrapped it with barricades. but if you want to remember one image of the shutdown, you remember this. you remember the image of world war ii veterans cutting the barricade and throwing them on the lawn at the white house. [applause] we did learn some things, and congressman jones will confirm this. during the shutdown they sent us a request. they said list your essential and your unessential employees. and i'm like, wow, we're going to learn a lesson here. we're going to learn what part of government we have to have and what we don't. i got to fill out a list for my employees. i said, well, let's find out what the i.r.s.'s list look like. i asked my staff to call the i.r.s. 90% unessential. i said we're going to learn something here.
90% of the i.r.s. is unessential. i said call the e.p.a. they called the e.p.a. 95% unessential. i tharbgts we're on to something here. we're going to discover that most of government is unessential. and i was so naive. because the more i dug into this, i discovered something. guess what? if you're unessential, you don't have to come to work but you do get paid. so there's an incentive to be essential has nothing to do with essential. has something to do with still getting pafmente every employee was still getting paid. you thought, we got rid of some bad ones. you can't -- are you crazy? you can't fire a federal employee. that's insane. they were looking at the e.p.a. and they actually did something for the first time. they actually started looking at some individual employees. they found one employee had not been to work in 20 years. now, she had a disability but
she had not communicated with anyone in the office for five years. you think they fired her? you can't fire a federal employee. you're crazy. they found another woman with who was selling vitamins and cosmetics and all sort of stuff on her work computer. did you fire her? are you crazy? e can't fire a federal -- we had a guy who was downloading porn eight hours a day. you can't fire a federal employee. my favorite a guy name jonathan beal. jonathan beal had worked for the c.i.a. for 11 years and was said to have been gina mcarthur's right-hand man. his expertise was global warming. he's a big deal up there. they found out and looked. he was gone most of the time. he kept getting glowing
performance reviews. he kept getting raise after raise. he's great. they actually asked, why doesn't he come to work and his boss said, well, he works also for the c.i.a.. they're like sfleefl the c.i.a. and the e.p.a. both? what a combination. then they did something really extraordinary. they call the c.i.a. and asked about jonathan beal. they said jonathan who? they'd never heard him. he probably makes $150,000 a year. 100,000 federal workers make over $100,000 a year. and they were all nonessential. just imagine him by the pool. he's got to have a pool. he's by the pool, his boss calls. they're like, jonathan with you -- are you coming in today?
no. i'm in istanbul on secret assignment. you remember the v.a. scandal? what was the biggest part of the v.a. scandal? even when we caught them making up waiting lists, no one was fired. anybody remember 9/11? anybody remember anybody being fired over 9/11? we have spent trillions upon trillions of dollars trying to be safe every. i am for being safer. i am for spending money to try to make the nation safer, but we have done ridiculous things. we spent $8 million in fargo last year. i tell people, if terrorists gets to fargo, we might as well surrender. we give equipment to our local police forces, mine resistant ambush protection volcanoes that weigh 20 tons. we had an example of this because of the force used in ferguson. we asked where is the equipment
coming from? well, it's coming from the military. it wasurns out a loft -- new. dunnedy, michigan, has a mine resistant ambush protection vehicle. in a town of 3,000. it encourages probably the wrong response to someone out there yelling and screaming in pro -- and protesting or whatever. this is america, for heavens headaches you're supposed to be able to employee test. when we started the homeland security they gave a wish list to every state. the mule day festival, the pop quorn factory, you know, all those high-risk terrorist targets. it's like everything else that's good in america, protect our country, they take the money and use it for something frive louse.
i had this debate with the president. i said why don't we cut some spending? he said we really couldn't -- where would we cut? we've cut to the bone. i gave him a list of a few things. i said why don't we just not rehire anybody when they retire. you'd save $6 trillion a year by not rehiring people. if you simply freeze federal spending, the budget balances within 10 years. if you were to cut 1 cent out of every dollar, the budget actually balances within five years. he says how could we do that. has anybody ever had to deal 1% less in income? people do it all the time. government does the opposite. when you siffer, they say government should spend more. maybe we should balance our budget to call it less suffering. maybe we'd have more jobs. [applause]
this will administration has been ridled with scandals. i think of old mcdonald's farm, here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal. we got a brand new one. they can't even keep intruders out of the white house but for the first time they actually let somebody go. watch closely. that person will probably turn up in another federal job somewhere. but of all the scandals, from the i.r.s., which does bother me to think you lose an election, you'll be audited because you're in the losing party? but of all the scandals that bothers me the most is benghazi. because the thing is -- [applause] the thing is, it is the job of the federal government to defend our country, to defend our embassy and defend our troops wherever they are. so in 2 six months leading up to ben gassy, there was -- benghazi, there was request after request after request for
more security. they said weed like -- we'd like a plane to move about the country. state department denied. three days later, hillary clinton's state department approved an electrical charging station for the embassy in vienna because it seems we were trying to green it up a bit. you know. one of the pry mayor fungs of the state department is not diplomacy but it's greening up of the planlts. so we ordered a $100,000 charging station for the chevy volt so we can show how green we are in veriena -- vienna. in the meantime we didn't have a plane for our personnel in libya. in september preceding the attack in benghazi -- hillary clinton's state department spent money for the state department. $650,000.
they spent $700,000 for landscaping for the embassy in brussels. they spent $5 million for glass ware for the embassy. the list goes on and on. in august, though, colonel wood, member of the 16-person security team sends cables, urgent cables saying, we need remain in country. the british were already leaving at that point. there had been an explosion at the british beamings. there were rumors daily of designation and attack, and they were refused permission to stay in country. in the middle of august, two or three weeks before the attack, there's a cable specifically sent from ambassador stephens to hillary clinton. when she came before my commeerkts that's the question i asked her. i said, secretary clinton, when you were asked directly, when you were sent cables directly from the war zone, from a nation just emerging from civil war, from a designation in the throws
of danger, from an -- throes of danger, did you read his cables? and she acted as if it was sort of beneath her, she wasn't expected to read the cables. i said, frankly, you're not providing the security of benghazi should prescrewed you from ever being considered for commander -- preclude you from ever being considered for commander in chief. [applause] one of the things walter has talked about and i've talked about about the middle east, is it's not only the defense of benghazi that was bad, the whole bar was illinois conceived. they were -- ill received. we were never asked permission. our founding fathers were specific about this. madison wrote in the federalist papers that history commons-p
demonstrates that the executive is the branch most prone to war. therefore we took that power and vested it in congress. congress was supposed to vote. it was intentional. it was to have a real debate before we went to war. but we went to bar in libya without authorization. you know what's going on there now? chaos. it's a jihadist wonderland. they're everywhere. they literally stpwhim our embassy pool in tripoli. the bar just left about a month ago. they couldn't leave by plane. it was too dangerous to leave by plane. they barely got out of the country. radical jihad, people who hate america and people who would attack us roam the country side in libya. why? because if there's one universal truth to the middle east, it's that the secular dictators hate radical islam and they did
create stability. and every time that a secular dictator has been topled chaos ensues, radical slamism rises to the fore front. it's not just libya. sadam was a secular dick tator. iraq's full of people who would come to america to attack us. isis wasn't a threat two years ago. why? because they probably would have been wiped out by assad. but we put 600 tons of weapons into the southeastern war. what happened? we created a haven. not just us, saudi arabia, qatar, united arab emirates. they poured equipment in there. some have ended up in the hands of isis. they were given to moderate reblings. i said this on the floor the other day. how many of these moderate
islamic rebels would recognize israel as a nation. zero. many of them have already announced that they will attack israel when they're done with assad. they've said we don't care about isis because they ahead assad also. when we're done with assad, we might deal with are israel. we come before a committee last week and secretary kerry says, we asked him where do you get the authority. he says from the 2001 resolution. i said, well, didn't that allow us to go into fean? what does -- afghanistan? what does that have to do with now? he said we can provide defense against forces such as al qaeda. i said it doesn't really say that but if that's the way you interpret it, maybe since the moderate rebels are fighting along side al qaeda, you could attack them. it makes no sense. but he's going on with this
charade that he can do whatever he wants. he finally said, well, even if the resolution in 2001 to go to afghanistan has nothing to do with syria, well, the president has article ii authority. that's where the executive branch gets their power from the constitution. so really, he doesn't care. none of them care. we didn't have any vote. they just went on willy-nilly to do it. there can be honest debate over whether we should. and frankly, i think we should do something about isis now. there should be no debate about the fact it should be done in a constitution way. we should have debate in congress and it should never be done unilaterally. [applause] i've been pretty harsh about the republican party winning the presidency again and winning national elections. we're doing great in certain congressional districts.
in certain red states we're doing fine. i've said we must either adapt, evolve, or die as a party. we need to be a more diverse party. we've got to have more people in our party, glack, white, brown, with tattoos, without tattoos, with earrings, without earrings. we need to look like the rest of america. i've been trying to go places where we haven't gone. i'm the first elected republican to go in years. i bring a message that says you know what? we care about people who live in poverty and we care about people who are unemployed. how would we fix it? we have a plan. so i took a plan to detroit and i said we will help detroit by leaving $1.3 billion in detroit. i'm not going to get it from north carolina. i would just let them keep it. money that they would have normally cents to washington over a 10-year period, it would be a billion dollar bailout but
a bailout with their own money. democrats have nothing to offer detroit. we got the vote in detroit. i think we show up, have a plan, we tell people with difficult circumstances that we want to help them and you know what? then all of a sudden we transform a whole electorate that hasn't been considering republicans and then we become the dominant party again. how do we do this across america? we got to show up. i think as we do it, we have to do it with an optimism. we have to do it with a smile. we have to do it by showing that we truly do care about people, where they are and where they live. i'm reminded of the both -- or he ainter robert henrime, advised young painters to paint like a man coming over the hill singing. i love that image. i think when we proclaim our message like a man coming over the hill singing. when we proclaim our message
senators. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. a lot of developments. a new poll showing the race is close. senator roberts is behind. he was involved in an aggressive primary. pat roberts, who has been a since 1980,olitics received just 48% of the vote in his own party and at that point i think a lot of people began to say look, this guy who's been around for a long time, may face serious concerns from the people of kansas if he can't do better than that within his own party so that's sort of the picture on the ground on his side and he's opposing a guy, now, named greg
orman, an independent, who is running a campaign that says i'm not a republican, or a democrat, i can vote for the best idea, i'm a problem solver and that has resonance in kansas, largely because, like a lot of other voters, there is disappointment and at times disgust with the stalemate in washington and orman is playing into that a little bit. >> we sat down today with senator jerry moran, republican from kansas, chair of the national republican senatorial campaign committee and he is painting the narrative that greg orman is a democrat and has supported president obama. are you going to hear more of that? >> without question. there is every attempt by the republicans in kansas and roberts campaign in particular to paint greg orman as a democrat and nationalize the election, to make greg orman an ally of president obama who is
very unpopular in the state of kansas, as he is in other places. that's their sort of path to victory, to make greg orman the issue and barack obama the issue but orman's response has been throughout the last several weeks that that's part of the old politics, that's the way things used to be done and that i am a problem solver, he says, that can go to washington and break the gridlock there and that has some -- some people in kansas like that approach because, a, they're concerned about stalemate in washington but the other problem for pat roberts out here and jerry may have talked about this, pat's been part of government for many years. he's 78 years old. he's been in elected office in washington since 1980 and people, a lot of kansans, not all, but some kansans think he's gone native, he's more about washington than kansas. those things are playing into this idea that here's a fresh
idea, independent voice. kansas is a very republican state and has not sent a senator from the democratic party to washington since the depression, only republicans, so roberts has built-in advantages. we'll see in a month or so how that turns out. >> let me ask you about this poll from suffolk university and "u.s.a. today" showing greg orman at 46%, senator roberts at 41%. he has been in the senate since 1996, replaced bob dole. in this survey, 11% undecided. >> i think that's because a lot of people don't know who greg orman is. he's never held elective office. he ran for the senate in 2008 and backed out before the primary. he ran as a democrat in that race in 2008. so a lot of voters probably don't know who greg orman is and they're waiting to get a clearer picture of what his issue positions are and how he might
vote. one of the most important things you'll hear out here is that greg orman has refused to so far say whether he would caucus with senate republicans or senate democrats if elected and that decision could have an enormous impact on how the senate is run after the elections so i think there is pressure from undecided voters to get a clearer picture of who greg orman is and pat roberts will exploit that. he'll say, i'm a republican, i'll vote for the republican leader and my opponent is not doing that and that is one of the important issues in this race. >> let me ask you about the governor's race. paul davis is slightly ahead against senator, now governor sam brownback at 42%. why is the gubernatorial race so close? >> a very different dynamic than the senate race which is being argued largely on national issues, democrats vs.
republicans. the governors race is built around competency and execution and governor brownback pursued in his first term a very aggressive program of cutting taxes in the state and at least to date the effect of that has been to blow a rather sizable hole in the state's budget without providing the kind of economic boost that i think he suggested would happen and so for that reason and because people are worried about cuts to education or transportation, paul davis, state representative, has gotten a lot of traction out here. whether that stays through election day, we'll wait and see. the governor is a fixture of kansas politics like pat roberts. they've known each other for a quarter century. kansas is a very republican state so both men have a built-in advantage but there is unrest among voters in kansas that you see in the poll numbers and campaigns and that in the end could have a dramatic effect on the futures of pat roberts
and sam brownback. >> dave helling is on the politics beat for the "kansas city star" joining us from kansas city. >> a debate between the candidates running for the montana seat. bozeman, theate in only televised debate before the election. here's a look at some the campaign ads. i could tell you all about my montana roots. i think it is more important to tell you where i stand. in congress, i will work to balance the budget the right way. keep our promises to our veterans and singers -- seniors. my will opponent wants to cut education and medicare and give
more tax breaks to corporations and billionaires. i approved this message to make congress work or montana. commander.platoon first grade.ters commander.r seal john lewis graduates high school. two montanans, two lives. one ready to leave in congress -- lead in congress. >> i am ryan's inky -- ryan zinke and i approved this message. >> what you see is what you get. net, i do noto have my own super pac. but i do want to get rid of goldplated pensions for congressmen.
keeping promises for seniors. i am john lewis. makerove this message to congress work for montana. two004, he was awarded bronze stars. 2005, ryan zinke assigned as dean for advanced training command. writingis begins obamacare. zinke. and im ryan zinke approved this message. >> live debate between the candidates running for the house at-large seat for montana. >> the c-span cities tour takes american history toad,
traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend, we partnered with comcast for a visit to boulder, colorado. >> it is a book about a large animal that in ancient times we would have called a beast. the mountain lion. in what is a garden, boulder, colorado. seemingly natural place. but in many ways it has been altered by humankind. when you get the wild animal coming into the artificial landscape, you can cause changes in its behavior. amount my impossible for food is venison. date eight about -- a mountain lion's favorite food is venison to rebate eat about one dear a week. rd inve a deaer he downtown boulder. the lions discovered there were er in town.
they lured the lions into town. then the lines discovered they could eat dogs and cats. they were learning and have learned this is where they will find food. there is food up there, too, but there is lots in town. >> this is a retreat in a beautiful place for enrichment, enlightenment, entertainment, and coming together. intended toho were be the audience were what we called the middle class. the programs were similar. of thenation of speakers day, also a variety of what we might consider highbrow and lowbrow entertainment. opera, classical music. probably what would be called the vaudeville of the day. >> watch all the events from
on book saturday noon tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3. >> next, a conversation with retired supreme court justice john paul stevens. after that, the d.c. district court of appeals here's -- hears an oral argument. and then president obama at a townhome gathering in indiana. >> retired supreme court justice john paul stevens spoke with towards town students about his life, legal career, and supreme court. he has a new book out. how and why we should change the constitution. he's the longest serving justice. he retired in 2010. his remarks are about an hour.
>> well, good morning, everyone or good afternoon. it's -- it's a great pleasure to welcome justice stevens to georgetown law school. this is -- this is a new tradition that we're starting today and it grows out of two programs that we've had in the past few years. past few years. so a few years ago justice sotomayor spoke to the first year class. and last year justice kagan spoke to the graduating class. and so a number of the faculty
were thinking what would be a good new tradition would be to have a leading member of the bench and bar come in at the start of the year to talk to our first year students about their career and to offered a vice about legal careers as people start their legal studies. so i can tell you how delighted i am that justice stevens is joining us here today. so a round of applause for justice stevens. [applause] >> maybe i should quit while i'm ahead. [laughter] thank you all very much. [laughter] so just a few housekeeping matters.
if you have cell phones, turn them off. i'll wait. and what we're going to do is justice stevens and i will talk and a number of students submitted questions in advance and so i will read those questions in addition to some questions that i've written. if we have time at the hour we'll have hand mics and we'll ask questions. it's great to see so many distinguished alumni and faculty and senior staff, my wife allison treanor and so many great new students. what a great way to start the ear. we normally say that our guest needs no words of introduction. that's actually true today but
let me say a few things about justice stevens' career before we start the questions. justice stevens is a knave of chicago -- native of chicago. and as the baseball postseason is starting right now, i think it's worth noting that he was present at the 1932 world series game where babe ruth pointed to center field and called the home run he was about to hit. and i believe you had the scorecard from that game in your office. >> i do. was kept by justice jackson's court years before because a lot of time had gone by. but when he hit it he went through his library card and gave me the card. >> oh, my god, that's terrific. that's terrific. >> jim marsh is his name. >> justice stevens went to the university of chicago as an undergraduate. enlisted in the navy in december of 1941 hours before
the japanese attack on pearl harbor. won a bronze star for his rvices as cryptographer, informing american officials were going to se attack. he clerked for justice rutledge on the supreme court. after that he went into private practice in chicago specializing in antitrust law. and then he was appointed to the seventh circuit. and he was nominated in 1975 by president gerald ford. president ford wrote that he chose justice stevens as having the finest legal mind that i could find. justice stevens' commitment to
justice, integrity regarding to the rule of law imbodied the the st yd -- ideals of judiciary. i can't think of of a better speaker. so thank you. i first met justice stevens. i was at fordham law school as the dean and abner green and one of justice stevens' clerk put together a symposium in his first 30 years in the supreme court. a to my surprise i received letter from president gerald ford about justice stevens and i'd like to start by quoting from that letter because it's really extraordinary. storian study dear deans trance, that's my favorite part.
historic and economic events that occur to evaluate their presidency. normally little or no consideration is given the long-term effects of a president's supreme court nominees. let that not be the case with my presidency. for i am prepared to allow history judgment in my term of office if necessary exclusively by my nomination 30 years ago, justice john paul stevens of the united states supreme court. criminal his views on law. he served his nation well at all times carrying out judicial duties with inteelect and without partisan concerns. it's an extraordinary letter. i don't know -- i don't know any other president who has
ever made a president like that about a supreme court justice. if the dean introduces me like this, i'm happy to do so. that was a wonderful letter, i must say. and i'm very, very proud of it. i thank the dean in his part in letter that hangs in my chambers. as i look out at the group i know you're not all freshmen but it reminds me of my first day in law school in booth hall at northwestern law school. the shape of the room is similar to this. it's set in a little higher up as you go. and those of you who are freshmen are -- you're going to
have a fine year ahead of you, what you're doing. >> what made you decide to go to law school? you originally thought you would be an english teacher? >> i did. there are probably -- there are two principle causes. ne was the g.i. bill of rights and gave me more opportunities than i would have been available. my brother wrote me a letter recommending that i go to law school in describing some of e benefits of being a lawyer and the rewards that he received from being able to use his skills helping people who really needed help. and that really made an impression he described what he
really enjoyed was his work. he was in practice with another young lawyer in chicago. firm. never joined a big he did a lot of good things. he changed my thinking. >> so that convinced you to pursue a legal career? >> that through -- that together with the g.i. bill, right. >> and did you like law school? >> yes, i did. i -- i think about it a great deal as i say this reminded me of it. at the time northwestern was a smaller school that had a smaller faculty of maybe eight or 10 people on the faculty and they were all fine people. dean green was the professor.
nd leighton matteson the professor. it was a small enough class that you got to know the professors well. i think that benefited from the small class and the small number of professors and the enter change between student and faculty. >> now, as our students are beginning their legal careers do you have any advice about what they should be doing in law school? >> it's hard to say but you better study hard. [laughter] it's not as easy as it may seem. it pays off. you enjoy it more if you really work at it and you really -- it's worth the work and you should study hard. >> that's very good. hope everyone's paying attention. and as they're thinking about their legal career doss you have advice for them? >> well, the one thing that's funny, i said this more than
one group is you should realize when you start practicing law is your most important asset is your reputation for integrity. and you must always remember you have to play by the rules. it's terribly important. if you don't people know about it, and the word will get out. .> one of the questions are you a faithful person and has your faith formed and changed your career? >> that's an interesting question. i don't know exactly how to answer it. but as i -- and i read that question over. it was asking about the extent to which it might have affected my -- my work on the court. and i think a lot about my mother in these cases. my mother was a christian scientist. her mother was a christian
scientist before her. i went to christian science sunday school and so forth. so that was my religion that had the greatest impact on my own work on the court. and i would often think about hether -- whether a statue was being fair or unfair to a religious minority, i would often think about requiring medical procedures or certain things like that which the christian science do not believe in. they don't believe you need any medical attention at all. and i often thought about, well, how my mother would react of being compelled to obey such a law. -- found lly i foined the general good was more important than the individuals that needed the assistance thans her own interests.
>> that's >> very -- that's very interesting. >> another question is, how important were mentors for you? >> i don't really think of anybody as mentor. justice rutledge taught me a great deal and the faculty taught me a great deal. ed war r. johnson who was the senior partner of the law firm that i worked for years and practiced was a person i admired and respected. i haven't thought of him as a mentor. i'm not sure i had any mentors. >> what did you learn from justice rutledge? >> well, i learned a great eal.
one example, -- you get a certain amount of case where is the prisoner or other personnel will file a paper that's in handwriting or typewritten or something like that and the procedure when i was a clerk was that those papers went to the chief's court. and the chief had three courts and the other chambers only had two. and the chief would prepare a memorandum. we called it a flimsy. those were the days before commuters. eight to pay paper -- by six or something like that. they would type up an original and eight copies. and then they would send them e memo -- that memo with the poppers to each chamber.
in many chambers they would read the chief's memo of that might summarize by saying an illinois prisoner hasn't exhausted his rights and was denied. justice rutledge insisted that his clerks would get the original papers and go through and make it as an independent judgment on what was going on. he taught me and stan, my co-clerk that every case is important. i have to find out what's on before you brush it off. and so he had a part of his job was he looked at it that every litigant was heard and hearing the uniform popper's cases we had a different responsibility nah than any of other justices. another thing i that learned from it is same -- same idea.
every case is important. he thought it was important to let every lawyer know that their arguments had been considered and thoughtfully. so he wrote longer opinions than anybody else on the court. he was careful to try and let the reader know that the argument had been considered and the reasons for rejecting it. and as a result he wrote much longer opinions than some of the others did, much longer opinions than i ever wrote too. i did learn that the respect of the litigant that he -- he fell for. and even more important -- i had another thought that i seemed to have -- oh, he wrote his own opinions. that's the point he wanted to make. he wrote his own opinions on a yellow pad -- on yellow pads which aren't so necessary with your computers now a days.
but he wrote them out in longhand. and then the -- and so i learned the value of writing the first draft of opinions. and i followed the same practice although my law firm made valuable additions to many of the opinions that i wrote. but i always wrote the first draft and that's largely because justice rutledge did it. and when he did it, his first drafts were generally typed up and that was it. it was the final -- it did not go through a series of changes. there would be changes suggested by justices from other chambers and sometimes they would accept them. sometimes he wouldn't. but it's pretty much is known for a first draft. so that's the thing i was going to say. i learned the importance of the first draft because you do learn much more about a case when you write about it rather than accepting an address by someone else.
>> were you the first supreme court clerk justice who had been the supreme court clerk? >> no, i was the third. the first was byron white whom 'd met during world war ii and -- i guess it was the second. i guess it was the second. bill rehnquist had been a clerk. and bill was senior to me as a justice but he clerked for jackson. >> for jackson. >> and now there are several. >> and did you experience as a clerk shape your work as a justice? >> oh, i think so. cirq me understand the process so that i didn't join the pool and that came along.
never trying to icrq pool. i think i had a feel for what goes on in the court. as a result my work as a clerk failed. >> i think as our students start law school, can you talk a little bit about what the cirq pool is and why you didn't participate in it? >> well, the cirq pool is a pool -- i don't know if the pool refers to the memo or the people that write to the memos but in any event all of the justices ex-cement -- except justice alito had certain memos written on every third case and so they all received the same so that om the clerk if the cirq pool writer is making that recommendation to
eight justices instead of just one. and i think the -- in that job there's the risk of the recommendation is to deny or call for the views of g.s.e. or something like that. and so the circ pool has an adverse effect on the number of cases that they were granted. >> now how important -- let's talk about the oral argument. how important is oral argument? >> while i was there i considered oral argument a very important part of the process. it frequently changed your mind on the case and had a particular insight on the case. -- i think the
oral argument is sufficiently important and explains why they don't televise the argument. televising the argument might bring about changes in the procedure that you can't anticipate. whenever television gets into it a new arena it sometimes has unexpected impact on the people who are being televised. so my strongest argument against televising is if it ain't broke don't fix it. don't take your chances. and i think it reflects the fact that the justices think the arguments are important. i know i thought they were important and i think that all y colleagues felt the same way. >> justin had asked do you think the argument should be recorded on video or broadcast live? so you don't think they should be? >> i have to confess, i've
changed -- i've vacillated somewhat on the issue because it would be a healthy thing for the public to witness the arguments as they go on because they would be favor impress and surprised at how well prepared the members of the court are. and so the question brings that out. so it would be well to have people -- have the opportunity to see arguments. i think you're better off not making a change that might be as important as that. it's a close question, though. >> now, do people recognize you? >> pardon me? >> do people recognize you? >> i would think that the supreme court becomes much more public. >> that's true. and that's one of the reasons
have formal colleagues a reason for not doing it. because you're really not -- public figures you're well recognized your name may be known. but when you have a name like john stevens is sort of like john smith. [laughter] >> i almost never recognize that outside of court. >> so you would not -- now, has questioning changed over time from when you started the court? >> i understand -- i haven't been to any arguments since i retired. they're nformed that even more active than when i was there. of course, there were questions when i was there. there are pluses and mine uses because people can ask any question he or she wants but if
you take up too much time it defeats the purpose of the argument. >> now when you ask questions what was the -- what was your goal? >> well, there was a very often a -- an issue that had not been fully spelled out in the briefs or i thought that either say the same ld questions. a question would help you understand when a case is bothering you. on occasion you would ask the question when you would pretty well made up your mind and your adversary would ask a question that didn't hold water and you would ask a question that would be designed to expose the plaw in the argument. but most of the questions i asked were seeking information i thought might be helpful and thinking the case through.
>> a good supreme courget argument is these people are think about being an advocate. is there any sad vice that you would give them -- is there any advice that you would give them? >> read the record. know what the case is all about and you know all the details of the case yourself because the judges -- the judges on the bench frequently will rely on lawyers to fill in gaps in the briefs. and so the first thing you have to know is really know the record. and the second thing is you do have to think through what you want to say and narrow the number of points down. take some notes -- obviously don't read the arguments. no point in reading the argument. but you put some points down to emphasize and try to get through those points before all that makes it
impofpblet >> what about brief writing? what makes a brief writing brief effective? > well, again, you've got to you've got to be honest in your briefs. u have to acknowledge that there's a serious problem in the case. don't try to meet it head on. don't try to bury it in a footnote because people who are going to read the brief people are not going to be misled or easily satisfied with some kinds of them. you must think through the issues and try to explain them as best you can because you realize that very intelligent good lawyers are going to be reading that and trying to figure out what to do based on what you say in the brief. >> you talked about the way in which the fact that your mother
was a christian signities that affected your thinking about religious questions in the court. let me ask you, you served in the military. did that affect your issues on the court? >> yes, i'm sure it did. one example comes up pretty often. the war head in the navy was alyzing enemy communications -- and most of the communications could not be read. some can be read and translated cryptographers but mine was radio intelligence and whom was sending message to whom and so forth. i still remember one event when the watch house ahead of me
receipted told me that they received a message from a japanese battle sthoip the truck area, the naval base n the south pacific. was down t battleship there required about where they were located. anyway, he suggested that i look for more evidence on this particular battleship. it's not long after that they got copies of the same message he had analyzed. garbled.d been it was not the battleship that he thought it was. it was -- in a routine way with that. ware of ned don't be
garbles which in turn is something hen you're reading aware s you have to be of garbles. it clearly doesn't reflect what the addressman intended which scalia and i violently disagreed upon. he thinks you should never look at legislative history because you're giving prominence to the staff of congress. and i think you should look at this as much as you possibly can so you understand the statutes so that the words that they used were not the same as garbles. so that particular incident did have an impact -- >> that's very interesting. i was at an event with judge
katzman -- >> i've read his book. he did a really great job. so he argues that legislative history should be used in legislative statutes. >> he's had a lot of experience in congress. i spent a lot of years as a staff member in congress myself. i think people who have had are experience in congress prone to studdy history because you learn more about the staff because of your background there. that's a good book he wrote. >> so your experience working in congress affects the way as a member of the court understood the statutes? >> it does. it does. i remember one occasion when i was talking to a congressman about it. it's too much detail about a
bill. and i explained the complication of the bill. he had a little trouble understanding it. and he said why don't we let the judges decide on that one. and he actually thought it was appropriate for congress to leave certain gaps in the legislation that could be sold out later on through the judicial process. >> and you agree with that? >> i agree with that completely. there are times when you can't anticipate every problem that's going to rise as a result of the statute. and i think it's a mistake for congress to try to be too thorough in trying to answer every possible question. >> your approach to constitutional interpretation is similar, in other words more ind of open ended? i guess that's right.
one difference between statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation that have been said in many opinions is the court should be more willing to retake a second look at a constitutional provision because nobody else an correct it. but when the statute had been construed i was a firm believer in statutory cases because if they had given a construction congress would always change it. and if we got it wrong i think the court should stick with it at any settled rule as valuable and let congress take responsibility for making any ditorial changes and statutes. you looked at what congress
had in mind but in terms of the constitution you didn't look at what the drafters' had in mind? >> i don't think that's true. you always try to find out what you can about the framers. but that's not necessarily the answer. in fact, there are some constitutional provisions that have a meaning directly opposite to what the framers intended. didn't real lizzie understand the full implications of some of them they enacted. my favorite is the religious clauses. hey were designed to protect the christian religion. but nonchristian were not protected and that's demonstrated by contemporary writing. but when you look at the problem today, you obviously freedom of religion
others. so it may be broader. it's the same for seg grated school. >> the constitutional doctrine that you evolved, your opinions changed every time that you were on the court. i don't of any today. >> a few other questions about your service on the court that i wanted to ask about. joe loveless. so joe asks during the time of the supreme court who's the funniest justice you worked with? >> i think scalia. he's got a wonderful sense of humor. nd i think he would qualify. but they're an intelligent nice
group of people. e example i might mention my . iend byron white nobody's in the conference room except the justices. and there's a telephone. and so when the phone in the conference room rings it's almost certainly a wrong number. [laughter] if they do have a message they knock on the door and the junior justice has to get up and have to answer the door. i was junior justice for many, many years. tom clark used to describe the junior justices the highest paid doorman in the country. [laughter] byron white -- when the phone rang he would pick it up and say joe's bar. and it would be a wrong number.
[laughter] >> i'll tell you another one about byron. >> i'm sure you know who byron white was. it's a bigger generation than i think you should. he was an all-american football player and he was generally a very, very good athlete. he would use the gym, the floor of the gym as the ceiling of the courtroom. and would dribble the basketball by himself and shoot a basket. the sound in the courtroom would be distracting. as a result of byron's activity there's a firm flule the court you may not play basketball while the court's in session.
[laughter] >> did the justices get along? >> yes, yes, they really do. they're all wonderful people. it's interesting. you had some pretty firm disagreements. there's no doubt about that. but it's all -- it's everybody understands sort of the general rule you're just doing the best you can. and sometimes you have -- you put stronger language in your opinion than you should. it rarely happened that there were times when i had some strong language and opinions. another justice might crawl up and say you really want to say that? accept the advice and change the language. bindeman writes which justice did you most admire and ook up to and why?
>> you know, i thought about that. i read the question in advance. i'm really not sure because i i admire nt areas different justices for difference reasons. i really admired all of them. they're exceptional people. i like to say thurgood marshall. but my strongest admiration for him is the work he did even before he was the justice. i mean, his work as a trial lawyer around the country, i think is seldom appreciated. the hard work he did and the risks he took -- he was very remarkable person.
i'm not sure who -- one other example was my friend because he had been encaged during a form of intelligence in a war. so we had some background in ome -- common. he's a good friend although we frequently disagreed on the merits of the cases. >> now, did the deliberations among justices affect the outcome? nishwari asked that question. how much deliberate lation rations occurs and how important is it? >> well, it's important but the amount and it varies with the cases. some cases are -- deliberation is very brief. but the deliberation almost entirely occurs at the conference at the end of the week